[Enchante]

Wikipedia and all other commentators are going to have to hurry to revise statements that it is “highly unlikely” that courts will try to apply Lawrence to service in the military:

“Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriages, and the right to serve in the military. The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court’s recognition that “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.”[15] The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the last court of appeals for Courts-Martial before the Supreme Court, has upheld that Lawrence applies to Article 125 of the UCMJ, the article banning Sodomy. However, the court has twice upheld prosecutions under Article 125 (the article prohibiting sodomy), in United States v. Marcum and United States v. Stirewalt, finding that the article was “constitutional as applied to Appellant”[16][17] and when applied as necessary to preserve good order and discipline in the armed forces. Although no court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to require states to allow same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts required that same-sex couples be given full marriage rights. The decision did cite Lawrence, which was decided some four and a half months earlier, but did not draw on its direct precedential authority, as Goodridge was decided on exclusively state constitutional grounds. On the other hand, several federal district and circuit courts that have considered the extent of Lawrence have held that it is an extremely narrow holding under rational basis review. These courts have ruled that Lawrence does not call into question laws regulating marriage, nor does Lawrence strike down other regulations related to homosexuality. (See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Lofton v. Sec. of Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th. Cir. 2004); Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).) The Supreme Court has not yet accepted any cases that present an opportunity to further define the implications of Lawrence....”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[AHerald]

Wikipedia and all other commentators are going to have to hurry to revise statements that it is “highly unlikely” that courts will try to apply Lawrence to service in the military

Good catch.

[Enchante]

"The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court's recognition that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society"

This is what Wikipedia's citizen editors were saying before now about why it was supposed to be "highly unlikely" that Lawrence could be applied to military service issues..... now we will have to see whether the SCOTUS still recognizes the important of the US military as "by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society" -- or will they join in the leftist trashing of the military by erasing the basic differences between military and civilian institutions???